From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jul 12 11:14:08 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0jDZ-00031B-ID for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:13:49 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0jDY-000311-Lw for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:13:49 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so423361pye for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:13:47 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=iymMKn8+fkp9WgqjnS5deIpaw8ZR9b5SNAo3wXkn1YOL66BKYJBz9lxVaxBsglrG/im+U2YvoNengbM6P8fV4U5Yz8teehaS+HAYeGWOoBPUjrfWk+39yClw9nCgN8Z1yC3CGSIbX33B3kimFBF8mT4Q6nAdnRDrYT6tsX7XebE= Received: by 10.35.82.15 with SMTP id j15mr1169661pyl; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.14.17 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560607121113y4d0be37y1fe4757a46c030f4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:13:47 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060711233003.36140.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560607120531v7de5bfefwa96db493b274fbdf@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 12156 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 7/12/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > No, I want to know how you explain why the singular is the only one > that is not subject to collectivity. You need at least two things before you can have a distinction between distributing or not distributing something among them. Isn't that obvious? > Why does adding a distributive > (and collective) marker to a singular make no sense? Because there is no distinction to be made. Why does it not make any difference to order a set of numbers from smallest to largest or from largest to smallest when the set contains a single number? Same thing with distributivity, if there is only one thing, distributive and non-distributive give identical results. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.